Maybe a tried-and-true PRNG could be used seeded with sha256(server_seed || ":" || user_seed) or whatever) instead of that nonce-postfix-thingy that is implemented, which only changes a couple of bits (down to only one bit rougly every second time) of the sha256 input between rolls. I'm not saying this is a flawed approach (I clearly do not know this), just that it's impossible for me to be sure it's not (partly) predictable.
If this is the case, wouldn't the entire proof of work for Bitcoin be compromised?
Bitcoin = SHA256(SHA256)
JD = HMAC-SHA512(sever seed, client seed, nonce)
They both use the SHA family right?